This article was downloaded by:

On: 29 June 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t770239508

Business and Climate Change: The Climate Response of the World's 30

Largest Corporations
Øyvind Ihlen

To cite this Article Ihlen, Øyvind(2009) 'Business and Climate Change: The Climate Response of the World's 30 Largest
Corporations', Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3: 2, 244 — 262
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17524030902916632
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524030902916632

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Environmental Communication
Vol. 3, No. 2, July 2009, pp. 244262

Business and Climate Change: The

Climate Response of the World’s
30 Largest Corporations
Øyvind Ihlen

This paper analyzes how central the climate change issue is and how it is treated
rhetorically in the non-financial reports of the world’s 30 largest corporations. The
analysis shows a huge variation in the extent to which this issue is addressed, with some
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

corporations barely mentioning it. Using an adaptation of Aristotelian topics to organize

an exploration of those that do address the climate issue, I found four topics are central:
(1) the environmental situation is grave; (2) the corporation is in line with the scientific
consensus and the international political process on curbing emissions (testimony);
(3) the corporation has to take measures to reduce its own emissions (relationship); and
(4) the climate challenge poses an opportunity for business (circumstance). There is little
to suggest, however, that corporations engage in the radical rethinking of systemic
problems that the situation’s gravity would seem to call for.

Keywords: Climate Change; Corporations; Business; Rhetoric; Topics

Climate change is often considered to be today’s most important environmental

challenge, and the scientific evidence increasingly points toward man-made emissions
of carbon dioxide as a cause of the problem (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2007). Unsurprisingly, a lot of attention has also been directed at how
businesses have responded (e.g., Begg, van der Woerd & Levy, 2005; Sullivan, 2008b).
Researchers have looked at both defensive strategies*disputing the scientific
evidence and lobbying against regulations*and proactive strategies like support
for regulation. The latter strategies, which involve looking out for the environment,
are increasingly seen as a way to gain legitimacy and are linked to programs for
corporate social responsibility (CSR). Scholars have also investigated the role played
by corporate environmental discourse to this end (e.g., Bullis & Ie, 2007; Feller, 2004;

Øyvind Ihlen is a post doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo and a Professor at Hedmark University
College. Correspondence to: Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo, Box 1093 Blindern,
N-0317 Oslo, Norway. Email: oyvind.ihlen@media.uio.no

ISSN 1752-4032 (print)/ISSN 1752-4040 (online) # 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17524030902916632
 Business and Climate Change 245

Livesey, 2002). Still missing, however, is a cross-industry study of climate change

rhetoric. This essay uses a sample of the non-financial reports of the 30 largest
corporations in the world to assess: (1) how high the climate issue is on the corporate
agenda and (2) what rhetorical topics corporations use in their treatment of the issue.
The study is premised on the argument that the attention and rhetoric of
corporations do something: they have the potential to influence our outlook by
directing our attention and creating particular meanings and understandings. This
may well be greenwashing where a corporation re-defines its negative environmental
impact to something acceptable to society. Corporate rhetoric is often used as a
strategy for acquiring legitimacy. Since corporations are often seen as a part of the
problem, they are expected to do something about it.
The next section elaborates on the question of legitimacy and its link to CSR,
before moving on to a discussion of the literature on the corporate environmental
response. The essay then proceeds to detail the theoretical framework and
methodology, before a two-part analysis is presented. The concluding section extends
the findings and points to avenues for further research.
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

Legitimacy
Organizational theory provides strong support for the notion that legitimacy is
crucial for organizations to survive in the long run. The core idea is that since society
has decided that the business institution is needed, society can also decide whether
that institution should cease to exist. Legitimacy in this sense can be defined as
having sufficient public support for continued existence (e.g., Palazzo & Scherer,
2006; Wæraas, 2007).
A legitimacy gap occurs when there is a discrepancy between a corporation’s
performance and society’s expectations of that corporation (Sethi, 1977). Corpora-
tions need to stay within the boundaries and norms established by the society to be
perceived as legitimate. As Sethi argued, these organizations can opt for three types of
strategy to deal with a legitimacy gap: they can attempt to change society’s
perceptions through education and information, they can change the symbols they
use to describe their performance, or they can effect changes in their business
performance (Sethi, 1977). The widespread attempts to develop CSR programs can be
seen against this background (see e.g., May, Cheney & Roper, 2007). CSR points to
certain boundaries: as a business seeks profit, it should avoid creating social or
environmental problems. Indeed, some argue that business should attempt to rectify
such problems (e.g., Post, Lawrence & Weber, 2002). The development of CSR
programs can be seen as an attempt to narrow legitimacy gaps and cope with them in
a systematic fashion. The basic goal of this and other types of legitimacy strategies
remains the same: to ‘‘maintain maximum discretionary control over . . . internal
decision making and external dealings’’ (Sethi, 1977, p. 58). In addition, however,
legitimacy can in turn lead to an improved reputation and, through it, to increased
profits, leverage in policy development, reduced risk, and so forth (Fombrun & van
Riel, 2004).
 246 Ø. Ihlen

Corporate Environmentalism and Climate Response

Much of the environmental debate revolves around the issue of climate change, on
which public attention is increasingly focused. A 47-nation survey conducted in 2007
showed that substantial majorities (25 out of 37) saw global warming as a ‘‘very
serious problem’’ (Pew Research Center, 2007, p. 36). The public also seems to expect
corporations to engage actively with environmental issues (e.g., Apéria, Brønn &
Schultz, 2004). Consequently, demonstrating concern for the environment is a vital
building block in acquiring legitimacy, which helps to explain why corporations have
increased the level of attention they pay to the issue (Bullis & Ie, 2007; Jose & Lee,
2007).
The different corporate responses before and somewhat after the Kyoto agreement
of 1997 were either defensive (actively opposing emission caps and regulation),
opportunistic/hesitant (preparing for regulation, but demonstrating caution about
the issue publicly), or offensive (arguing that companies need to take the first step,
while also believing that they would profit from such action) (Kolk & Pinkse, 2004).
One example of a defensive response is the formation of the Global Climate Coalition
(19892002), which worked against emission limits, arguing that they would inflict
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

economic damage (Dunn, 2002). For the most part, however, a wait-and-see attitude
prevailed in the corporate world during the 1990s (van der Woerd, Levy & Begg,
2003).
Today, fewer corporations dispute the scientific conclusions about climate change.
Instead, many have embraced market-based solutions such as emission trading, self-
regulation, and new technology (Dunn, 2002; Kolk & Pinkse, 2007; Yeoh & Tang,
2007). Still, ‘‘climate change activities are not widespread yet, and policies are being
contested as well’’ (Kolk & Hoffmann, 2007, p. 411). This has also led to the
conclusion that corporate commitments, at least in the USA, have done little
to counter climate change (Jones & Levy, 2007). Although commentators argue that
some progress has been made, many corporations expect their absolute emissions to
grow because of economic growth. There are few indications that the more
fundamental re-thinking of business models needed for a low-carbon future is
anywhere in sight (Sullivan, 2008a).
In an exploratory study of corporate environmental discourse, Bullis and Ie (2007)
point to five typical environmental stances that corporations adopt: compliance
(reacting to pressure), openness (sharing information), integration (attempting to
realize positive gains), collaboration (partnering with external stakeholders), and
sustainability (implementing an ethical, ecological, and systems-based approach that
does not place the corporation’s financial interests first).
Empirical longitudinal studies have also demonstrated that corporations increas-
ingly claim to be sustainable and to contribute to sustainable development (Kolk,
2008). These terms also hold a prominent place in CSR thinking and are crucial to
gaining legitimacy. Indeed, some argue that CSR is the way toward sustainability
(Ganesh, 2007), although others note that without sustainability, CSR is no more
than ‘‘greenwash’’ (Peterson & Norton, 2007).
 Business and Climate Change 247

Still, sustainability and sustainable development are highly contested concepts, and
the understanding furthered by Bullis and Ie (2007) is not dominant in the corporate
world. Most agree that sustainability says something about an entity’s ability to
continue in existence, and that sustainable development combines and balances
concerns about environmental and socio-economic issues (Hopwood, Mellor &
O’Brien, 2005). From this point, however, views diverge. Critics have typically alleged
that corporations use strategic definitions that fit their own agendas and interests. For
example, oil companies have claimed to be sustainable because they strive to cut their
emissions (Ihlen, 2009). As Feller (2004, p. 67) has argued, corporate environmental
reports rarely recognize problems with environmental performance or discuss
fundamental problems such as whether certain industries and the lifestyles they
support ‘‘inherently produce more harms than benefits.’’ To be ecologically
sustainable, a system should not cause emissions beyond what the environment
can handle, and should not consume resources ‘‘at a rate below the natural
reproduction, or at a rate below the development of substitutes’’ (Dyllick & Hockerts,
2002, p. 133). Several critics argue that ecological sustainability in this sense has been
marginalized and that economic and technological matters are privileged in corporate
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

rhetoric (Fergus & Rowny, 2005; Peterson, 1997). This has led some observers to
argue that sustainability has become a concept devoid of meaning, and that no
effective or necessary changes are taking place (Welford, 1997). Others, however, see
sustainability as referring to an evolving process that is influenced by a discourse that
needs to be opened up for public participation (Peterson & Norton, 2007).

Framework: Keywords and Topics

Unquestionably, the issue of climate change garners significant public attention, but
this analysis targets corporate attention. I begin by identifying the frequency in non-
financial reports of certain keywords/phrases: ‘‘climate,’’ ‘‘global warming,’’ ‘‘Kyoto/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),’’ and ‘‘greenhouse gas/carbon/
CO2.’’ If corporations do discuss the issue at length, they use the word ‘‘climate’’
frequently.
In 2002, political consultant Frank Luntz urged the US administration to talk
about ‘‘climate change’’ instead of ‘‘global warming,’’ since focus group participants
perceived the latter as less frightening: ‘‘While global warming has catastrophic
connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less
emotional challenge’’ (Luntz Research Companies, 2002, p. 142). A recent European
poll, however, shows that the terminology had no major influence on how
respondents rated the problem (Eurobarometer, 2008). Still, it is arguably interesting
to see whether corporations use the term ‘‘global warming.’’
The mention of ‘‘Kyoto/IPCC’’ is perceived as an indicator of the recognition of the
international climate process, both politically and scientifically. The extent to which
corporations mention ‘‘greenhouse gas/carbon/CO2’’ says something about their
focus on the root cause of the problem. A comparison of these quantitative measures
 248 Ø. Ihlen

should suggest how central corporations believe the climate issue to be and point to
some of the aspects they consider to be crucial.
The second part of the analysis focuses on how corporations address the issue of
climate change rhetorically. Rhetorical strategies are here understood broadly as the
means corporations employ to persuade the readers of their reports that they are
dealing with the issue appropriately. This analysis concentrates on the classical notion
of topics. Some see topics as a way of thinking creatively about different issues,
whereas others have argued that they are a way of justifying claims, and others
understand them as the basic elements of enthymemes. The most common
understanding, and the one used in this essay, is that topics are a more general
method for finding arguments (Herrick, 2001).
Aristotle dealt with common topics and special topics. The former are useful in all
species of rhetoric, and include arguments from definition, comparison, relationship,
circumstance, or testimony (Corbett & Connors, 1999). The latter are tied to the
three basic species of rhetoric: deliberative (political), epideictic (demonstrative or
ceremonial), and judicial speech. For instance, when giving a deliberative speech, the
rhetor may address war and peace. Several such specific topics were highlighted by
Aristotle, and he also emphasized that they could help the rhetor to treat the subject
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

systematically (Aristotle, 1991). In the context of this essay, special topics are those
that belong specifically to the domain of environmental rhetoric, such as the topic of
the irreparable (Cox, 1982).

Methodology
The Global Fortune 500 list was consulted in July 2007, and the non-financial reports of
the top 30 corporations were downloaded from the corporations’ homepages. In the
end, the material analyzed consisted of 29 reports (i.e., Allianz, 2006; American
International Group (AIG), 2007; Assicurazioni Generali, 2007; AXA, 2007;
Bank of America, 2007; BNP Paribas, 2007; BP, 2007; Chevron, 2007; China
National Petroleum Corporation, 2007; Citigroup, 2007; ConocoPhillips, 2007;
DaimlerChrysler, 2007; Eni, 2007; ExxonMobil, 2007; Ford, 2006; Fortis, 2007; General
Electric, 2007; General Motors, 2007; HSBC, 2007; ING Group, 2007; Shell Group,
2007; Siemens, 2007; Sinopec, 2007; State Grid, 2007; Total, 2007; Toyota, 2007; UBS,
2007; Volkswagen AG, 2005; Wal-Mart, 2007). It seems that the French insurance
company Credit Agricole does not publish a separate non-financial report (at least, no
such report could be downloaded from its homepage).
The websites were re-checked in February 2008, which returned more hits. For
example, a report that Wal-Mart published in November 2007 was found. This report
and some of the others (i.e., General Motors and Ford) focused on corporate activity
over a longer time frame than just 2006. However, they were included and considered
to be on par with the others as a textual representation of company policy regarding
climate change.
Inspired by grounded theory research (Glaser & Strauss, 1999), the author followed
an inductive stepwise approach to gain a clearer understanding of the rhetoric
 Business and Climate Change 249

adopted by the corporations under study. For example, for the first part of the
analysis, simple searches of the reports were conducted to find the keywords/phrases,
‘‘climate,’’ ‘‘global warming,’’ ‘‘Kyoto/IPCC,’’ and ‘‘greenhouse gas/carbon/CO2.’’ For
the second part of the analysis, a research assistant read the entire reports and pulled
out those sections that mentioned the climate issue. This process generated a
document that the author read and analyzed before going back to the complete
reports to read the statements in their original context. By conducting inter and intra-
group comparisons between the reports and the relevant passages, and by going back
and forth between the research literature and the data, the theoretical suggestions that
are presented in the analysis section were generated.
A few caveats are in order. This analysis says nothing about how or if the
corporations actually carry out their environmental initiatives. Furthermore, as these
are multinational corporations, policy implementation may vary from country to
country and from region to region, and this is not accounted for here. The analysis
focuses on the aforementioned reports, rather than on the myriad other statements
and publications issued by the corporations under study. It is argued, however, that
these reports should be seen as crucial policy statements that are vital to an
understanding of the corporate response to climate change.
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

Findings
Climate on the Agenda: Keyword Frequency
Climate. The first keyword, ‘‘climate,’’ is used by all but two of the corporations*
State Grid and Toyota. This is rather surprising in the latter case, given that Toyota
has made inroads in the automobile market with its hybrid model, Prius, which caters
to consumers who worry about the environment. Two of the corporations, China
National Petroleum and Siemens, only mention the climate in passing. On the other
end of the scale is Ford, which uses the word ‘‘climate’’ 70 times in its 42-page report.
On average, however, the corporations included here mention climate 23 times (see
Table 1).
Global warming. Only 10 of the corporations use the phrase ‘‘Global warming.’’ Most
interestingly, Toyota mentions it 23 times, thus countering the impression gained by
searching only for the keyword ‘‘climate.’’ Wal-Mart, UBS, Citigroup, ConocoPhillips,
and General Motors employ the phrase two to three times, whereas the ING Group,
Volkswagen, BNP Paribas, and AXA each use it once. One hypothesis for the scarce
mention of this phrase could be that most of the corporations shun what they
consider to be alarmist rhetoric. The phrase almost fell out of use in the US
administration during 2002 (Burkeman, 2003). Another hypothesis is that the
corporations for the most part are following the standard ‘‘official’’ language of the
names of institutions and legal frameworks, e.g., the IPCC. It could also be argued
that climate change is an umbrella term that encompasses changes as a result of CO2
emissions, while global warming refers to the more constricted phenomenon of
surface temperature (Conway, 2008).
 250 Ø. Ihlen

Table 1 Ranking of the frequency of the keyword ‘‘climate’’.

Company name Climate Total pages

Ford Motor 70 42
UBS 52 43
Fortis 51 58
Chevron 45 44
Citigroup 45 92
Shell 38 44
Bank of America 36 49
ConocoPhillips 33 72
Allianz 28 14
Total 28 95
BP 27 54
Eni 27 108
ExxonMobil 24 57
General Motors 24 142
ING Group 23 45
HSBC Holdings 20 43
DaimlerChrysler 18 67
Volkswagen 14 72
BNP Paribas 13 231
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

Wal-Mart 11 60
AIG 9 28
AXA 9 88
Sinopec 7 28
General Electric 6 96
Assicurazioni Generali 4 168
China National Petroleum 3 69
Siemens 1 20
State Grid 0 82
Toyota Motor 0 86

Kyoto/IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Fourteen of the corpora-

tions mention the Kyoto agreement and/or the IPCC, hence referring to international
efforts to curb emissions and the scientific assessment of the climate change issue.
The oil companies Eni and Total top the list with nine and six mentions, respectively.
BNP Paribas, ConocoPhillips, Fortis, and Chevron each refer to Kyoto/IPCC three to
five times, whereas Shell, Ford, BP, DaimlerChrysler, HSBC, China National
Petroleum, and Toyota mention them one to two times each. In other words, these
corporations do not necessarily make direct links to international climate policy or
scientific assessments, as more than half of them fail to mention the Kyoto agreement
or the IPCC at all.
Greenhouse gas/carbon/CO2. There are huge differences in the mentions of carbon/
CO2. In its 60-page report, Wal-Mart mentions greenhouse gas/carbon/CO2 181
times, whereas Toyota and ConocoPhillips do so 149 and 144 times, respectively. On
average, the corporations mention these keywords 65 times. Siemens, Sinopec, and
State Grid stand out with only one to four mentions each (see Table 2).
 Business and Climate Change 251

Table 2 Combined ranking of the keywords ‘‘greenhouse gas,’’ ‘‘carbon,’’ and ‘‘CO2’’.
Company name #

Wal-Mart 181
Toyota Motor 149
ConocoPhillips 144
Total 120
Shell 119
Ford Motor 118
Eni 112
HSBC Holdings 106
General Motors 99
BP 89
Fortis 87
DaimlerChrysler 82
ExxonMobil 67
UBS 59
Chevron 54
Bank of America 52
Citigroup 40
ING Group 36
BNP Paribas 35
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

AXA 31
Volkswagen 27
General Electric 18
Assicurazioni Generali 15
China National Petroleum 14
Allianz 11
AIG 6
Siemens 4
Sinopec 3
State Grid 1

Taken together, these frequencies say something about how much attention these
corporations devote to the climate change issue and certain of its aspects. To allow a
figurative comparison, the aforementioned numbers are combined in Figure 1,1
which helps to demonstrate that, although the climate issue is on the agenda of most
of these corporations, there are huge variations in the amount of attention devoted to
it. The seven corporations in the lowest quartile include State Grid, Siemens, Sinpoec,
AIG, China National Petroleum, Assicurazioni Generali, and General Electric. The
seven corporations in the upper quartile*Wal-Mart, Ford, ConocoPhillips, Toyota,
Shell, Total, and Eni*actually employ these keywords quite frequently. The first three
use them at twice the average of 90 times (total mentions were 2622 times).
It is difficult to single out what predicts how often corporations will use such
terms, with one exception. The three Chinese companies in the sample are all located
in the lowest quartile. One hypothesis is that the absence of a climate focus in State
Grid’s report, and the scant attention paid to the issue by Sinopec and China National
Petroleum, can be at least partly linked to the less than enthusiastic attitude of the
Chinese government with regard to emission regulation. The literature has previously
shown that this has been the case with US and Australian companies (Kolk & Pinkse,
 252 Ø. Ihlen

State Grid

Siemens Climate
Global warming
Sinopec Kyoto/IPCC
AIG Greenhouse gas/carbon/CO2

China National Petroleum

Assicurazioni Generali

General Electric

Allianz

AXA

Volkswagen

BNP Paribas

ING Group

Bank of America

Citigroup

ExxonMobil

Chevron
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

DaimlerChrysler

UBS

BP

General Motors

HSBC Holdings

Fortis

ENI

Total

Shell

Toyota Motor

ConocoPhillips

Ford Motor

Wal-Mart

0 90 180

Figure 1. Ranked and combined frequency of the keywords ‘‘climate,’’ ‘‘global warming,’’
‘‘Kyoto/IPCC,’’ and ‘‘greenhouse gas/carbon/CO2’’.*
*The keywords were mentioned 2622 times in total, an average of 90 times per corporation.

2004, 2007). The importance of the home base and social pressure has also been
pointed out in other studies (Skjærseth, 2005), and hence it is worthy of note that the
Chinese public considers global warming to be a less than serious problem (Pew
Research Center, 2007). On the opposite end, in the upper quartile is the only
Japanese company in the sample*Toyota. Interestingly, Toyota is the only
corporation to make heavy use of the phrase ‘‘Global warming,’’ and opinion polls
 Business and Climate Change 253

show that the Japanese public seems to be very worried about climate change (Pew
Research Center, 2007).
However, the home base variable cannot account for all of the variation.
Traditionally, corporations in Europe have moved faster to adopt a proactive stance
than have their US counterparts (Jose & Lee, 2007; Kolk & Pinkse, 2004, 2007). In
this sample, however, European companies are found in both the lowest quartile
(Siemens, AIG, and Assicurazioni Generali) and the upper quartile (Total, Eni, and
Shell). Furthermore, three US corporations are also located in the upper quartile*
Wal-Mart, Ford, and ConocoPhillips. This may mean that the landscape is changing,
as increasing numbers of corporations see ‘‘going green’’ as a viable strategy for
improving their reputation (e.g., Fisher, 2007).
The corporations in this study represent a range of different industries, the most
prominent being petroleum (nine), banking (seven), insurance (five), and auto-
motive (five). It could be expected that the type of industry is an important factor, as
environmental impact varies greatly across different sectors. Research has also shown
that corporations in environmentally sensitive industries are more inclined to publish
environmental information (Jose & Lee, 2007). In addition, 80% of the top 30
corporations can be considered to be business-to-consumer companies, which may
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

mean that they place greater emphasis on such legitimacy-enhancing strategies as

expressing care for the environment.
Industry type does indeed seem to have a certain influence, at least for petroleum
companies. Two-thirds of the petroleum companies in the sample are located in the
two upper quartiles. The only exceptions are the aforementioned Chinese petroleum
companies and ExxonMobil, which fall between the second and third quartiles. The
latter corporation is often criticized for what is seen as efforts to undermine the work
of the IPCC (Rowlands, 2000; Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007). Apart from this
finding, however, it is difficult to discern any other effects of industry type. Two
automakers*Ford and Toyota*find themselves in the upper quartile, whereas
German automaker Volkswagen falls into the second lowest quartile. Insurance
companies are found in all but the top quartile. This is surprising, as insurance
companies are in the business of calculating future risk and could thus be expected to
take a more proactive stance toward cutting their losses that stem from the extreme
weather caused by climate change.

Climate Topics

Gravity. Considering the corporations in the lowest quartile (indicated by Figure 1),
China National Petroleum and the Chinese utilities company State Grid stand out, as
they do not directly discuss the climate change issue at all. Both companies, however,
touch on the issue indirectly by mentioning energy conservation and renewable
energy. China National Petroleum says that it strives for zero pollution and a cut in
emissions, but the environmental sections of its report focus only on local issues.
The Italian insurance company Assicurazioni Generali has the second largest report in
the sample at 168 pages, but only 10 of these are devoted to environmental issues. The
 254 Ø. Ihlen

climate issue is not discussed, although the company uses a Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) identification table and writes about renewable energy and cutting
emissions (Assicurazioni Generali, 2007).
The third Chinese corporation in the sample, Sinopec (2007, p. 5), although still in
the lowest quartile, singles out climate change as the foremost environmental
challenge and declares ‘‘as an energy consumer, we strive to reduce our energy
intensity and overall energy consumption, minimize greenhouse gas emissions and
therefore contribute to the global issue of climate change.’’ This points to the
recurring topic of gravity, which many of the corporations in the other quartiles also
emphasize. The climate issue is characterized as important with varying degrees of
pathos, an emotional appeal that is linked to the audience, rather than the rhetor. The
assumption is that, as human beings, we are inclined to react emotionally to certain
events in similar ways (Crowley & Hawhee, 1999). Faced with a grave challenge, we
are compelled to act or to commend those who take action.
Gravity is signaled by such phrasing as ‘‘climate change is a ‘pressing issue’ ’’ (AXA)
and ‘‘climate change is doubtless the greatest environmental challenge of our day and
age’’ (Volkswagen AG, 2005, p. 25). Other examples include: ‘‘We believe climate
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

change is the single biggest environmental challenge facing the planet this century’’
(HSBC, 2007, p. 26), and ‘‘Climate change is probably one of the most crucial
challenge the world faces today’’ (Fortis, 2007, p. 13).
The insurance company AIG (2007, p. 14) calls for federal legislation to limit
greenhouse gases and uses such formulations as ‘‘AIG recognizes that climate change
poses risks to human health and well being, risks to ecosystems and their balance, and
risks to the customers and markets we serve.’’ This statement counters the picture
painted by the keyword search in the preceding section. AIG has the climate issue on
its agenda, although it does not use the climate keywords as frequently as most of the
other corporations do.
Authorities say. Another topic used by several of the corporations is to indicate they
are in line with the scientific consensus (as expressed by the IPCC), while at the same
time adding certain qualifiers. The same topic is used when the corporations point to
how they heed the international climate agreement laid down in the Kyoto protocol.
This could be called a topic of testimony: that is, the authorities have established
something that the rhetor adheres to as well (Corbett & Connors, 1999). As indicated
by the keyword search, some of the corporations (BNP Paribas, BP, Chevron,
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Total) point directly to the scientific evidence and other
published reports. The Italian petroleum company Eni serves as an example:
Given the current state of knowledge, Eni believes that the use of fossil fuels can
contribute to a global climate change. Contributing to the achievement of the
objectives set forth under the Kyoto Protocol and to reducing the level of global
CO2 emissions. (Eni, 2007, p. 11)
Shell Group (2007, p. 1) even goes as far as to say that the debate about uncertainty
is over: ‘‘(F)or us, the debate about CO2’s impact on the climate is over.’’ It also seems
 Business and Climate Change 255

that ExxonMobil, infamous for funding global warming critics, has changed its
position somewhat:
Climate remains an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. Nevertheless,
the risk to society and ecosystems from rising greenhouse gas emissions could
prove to be significant. So, despite the areas of uncertainty that exist, it is prudent
to develop and implement strategies to address this risk. (ExxonMobil, 2007, p. 5)
Another of the petroleum companies, Total, expresses support for the Kyoto
protocol, but with an important caveat: ‘‘Total supports implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol, which must not, however, undermine the industrial competitiveness of
signatory countries’’ (Total, 2007, p. 18).
Taking action. The relationship topic of taking action rests on recognizing the gravity
of the issue and support for the conclusions of the IPCC and the Kyoto protocol. Y
‘‘has to’’ follow X, according to the typical relationship topic (Corbett & Connors,
1999). Siemens (2007, p. 13), for instance, declares that ‘‘it is committed to taking
action within the company to help protect the climate.’’ As specific examples, the
corporation mentions that it has conducted energy efficiency and energy savings
workshops. It also mentions that it has helped to convert a power plant to natural gas,
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

thus limiting emissions. Again, a slightly different picture appears from that painted
by the slim frequency with which the keywords were used by Siemens. The climate
change issue is on this corporation’s agenda, although it does not devote much space
to elaboration.
General Electric has set a goal of reducing its GHG emissions by 1% by 2012.
Furthermore, the corporation states:
Governments around the world, collectively and individually, have recognized the
need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as part of the efforts to combat
climate change. To help accomplish this goal, GE supports energy policies that
encourage investments in, and the deployment of, new, more efficient and
renewable technologies. (General Electric, 2007, p. 61)
It is primarily cutting one’s own emissions and improving energy efficiency that is
the suggested corporate action. The term ‘‘CO2/carbon neutral’’ is found in the reports
of AXA, Bank of America, BP, Chevron, Citigroup, ConocoPhillips, DaimlerChrysler,
ExxonMobil, Ford, Fortis, GE, HSBC, ING, Toyota, USB, Volkswagen, and Wal-Mart.
Fortis puts it this way: ‘‘(B)y reducing our own environmental footprint, proactively
developing products and services related to climate change, analyzing our indirect
impact and developing business-driven policies, Fortis (2007, p. 9) wants to contribute
to a solution for climate change.’’
London-based HSBC states that the corporation has been carbon neutral since
2005, as it offsets its emissions by paying for measures elsewhere. ConocoPhillips has
developed policies and positions on such issues as climate change and renewable
energy. AXA and Ford also point to targets and achievements at the company level.
The former has ‘‘targets for reducing the consumption of paper, water, power, CO2
emissions, and responsibly disposing of electronic wastes’’ (AXA, 2007, p. 75). The
 256 Ø. Ihlen

latter claims to have already ‘‘cut global energy use by 27 percent . . . since 2000’’
(Ford, 2006, p. 4).
The corporations under study also differ in their views of governmental action;
some favor voluntary action, whereas others call for legislation. ConocoPhillips
(2007, p. 25), for example, announces ‘‘that mandatory national regulatory frame-
works which link to international ones are most likely to achieve meaningful global
GHG reductions.’’ The insurance company AIG points to its membership in the
United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) as a positive development.
General Motors (2007, p. 37), however, opposes government regulation: ‘‘Policy
initiatives that encourage advanced technology development are best addressed
through voluntary initiatives and market-oriented measures, not government
mandates.’’
Opportunities. An interesting finding is that some of the corporations express the view
that climate change not only poses a problem in the form of increased risk, but that it
also constitutes a business opportunity. This could be described as a topic of
circumstance, by which the rhetor is able to encourage or discourage the audience, or
him or herself, by pointing out how something is possible/impossible or that
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

something probably has happened or probably will happen (Corbett & Connors,
1999). Allianz (2006, p. 2) expresses it in this way: ‘‘We are confident that every risk is
accompanied by an opportunity.’’ HSBC argues similarly:
We also see an opportunity to serve existing clients better, advising them of the
economic, financial and environmental implications of increased carbon dioxide
emissions. We see clean energy generation, energy efficiency and renewable energy
as areas with enormous growth potential. HSBC is well positioned to capitalize on
this growth. (HSBC, 2007, p. 25)
The business opportunity in question seems most often to be the ‘‘first mover
advantage,’’ that is, earning profits because of a corporate pioneering role that, for
instance, sets the company apart from its competitors. The literature typically points
to how initiatives have to be central to the vision or mission of a corporation, how
they must provide firm-specific benefits and be visible (Tetrault Sirsly & Lamertz,
2008). Insurance companies, for instance, may have to make larger payouts because
of more extreme and volatile weather. However, they may also attract more business
because customers perceive the risk to be high and favor corporations with a green
image. BP (2007, p. 37) points to how it is ‘‘widely known as the first oil company to
publicly acknowledge the issue.’’ Like Shell, BP has taken on the role of sustainable,
green oil company by emphasizing how it promotes renewable energy. Both of these
oil companies also find themselves in the upper quartiles of the companies as ranked
in Figure 1.

Discussion and Conclusion

It is important to study corporate rhetoric on matters such as climate change because
it has the potential to influence public attention to and understanding of these issues.
 Business and Climate Change 257

Corporations contribute to the construction of discourses on climate change, thus

signaling how serious the challenge is and what can be done about it. Corporations
are by no means lone actors in this arena, and they are confronted in the public
sphere by the competing discourses offered by environmental organizations,
politicians, researchers, and journalists (Peterson & Norton, 2007). Still, their vast
resources and political clout directly and indirectly make them a particularly
important object of study.
A second important premise that has been argued for is that corporations cannot
construct their responses to climate change at will. To be perceived as legitimate, to
have the necessary external support to continue in existence (Wæraas, 2007),
corporations must adhere to social values and norms. They also need to close
legitimacy gaps (Sethi, 1977). As has been argued here, the construction of CSR
programs, which necessarily includes expressing care for the environment, can be
seen as an important strategy in this respect.
Previous research (Bullis & Ie, 2007; Jose & Lee, 2007; Kolk, 2008) has concluded
that corporate attention to the environment has increased. This study certainly
supports the argument that the climate change issue in particular is high on the
corporate agenda, although the level of attention varies. For example, the Chinese
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

corporations State Grid and China National Petroleum do not mention the issue
directly in their non-financial reports of 2006. Previous research has often pointed to
the importance of the home base and social pressure (Rowlands, 2000; Skjærseth,
2005). This invites the conclusion that the legitimacy of Chinese corporations lies in
something other than addressing climate change. Perhaps their rhetoric is matched to
the situation and the legitimacy gap perceived in other countries simply does not exist
in China at present.
The keyword search and topical analysis have also shown how the type of attention
varies among the corporations under study. Although only 10 of them used the term
‘‘global warming,’’ four of them only in passing, most of the corporations use a topic
of gravity to discuss the situation. As previously pointed out, surveys indicate that the
public in many countries considers climate change to be a very serious problem (Pew
Research Center, 2007). The high-level international negotiation process should also
invite a prominent place for the issue on the corporate agenda, but the corporations
considered here do not necessarily devote much space to addressing either the policy
or the scientific aspects of the issue. Fewer corporations seem to rely on the defensive
strategy spearheaded by such corporations as ExxonMobil (Dunn, 2002; Kolk &
Pinkse, 2007; Yeoh & Tang, 2007). Some, such as Shell, argue that the debate is over.
Still, as has been demonstrated, the support garnered by corporations such as
ExxonMobil and Total is decidedly cautious.
The results of the keyword search for ‘‘greenhouse gas/carbon/CO2’’ also show
huge variation among the corporations. It seems, however, that if corporations are to
address the issue of climate change in an adequate manner, then its root causes also
need to be discussed. This then easily invites the criticism that corporations typically
do not discuss environmental problems in full (Feller, 2004). That said, the most
common types of topic used by the corporations are those of relationship, the gravity
 258 Ø. Ihlen

of the situation, what the authorities say, and action must be taken. The action
described, however, generally involves emission cuts and energy savings. As with
Feller’s (2004) findings, the 29 reports considered here contain little discussion of the
underlying systematic problems. The mentions of sustainability and sustainable
development do not address the types of ideals put forward by Bullis and Ie (2007),
Sullivan (2008a), and others who have called for a more fundamental re-thinking of
business models. Instead of fostering real change, these corporations stall by saying
that they must balance their economic, social, and environmental responsibilities. In
reality, however, it is economic responsibility that is still given priority (Ketola, 2007;
Livesey, 2002). It is also interesting to note that four companies (Ford, BP, Chevron,
and General Motors) that made a list of ‘‘America’s worst greenwashers’’ (Green Life,
2006) are among those companies that used the mentioned keywords most often.
This leads to the following, rather obvious, caution: that Company X uses a certain
type of rhetoric or mentions a keyword a certain number of times does not tell us
whether this company takes the measures necessary to reduce its negative
environmental impact. Whatever environmental record a corporation has; it will
still most likely subscribe to the same types of rhetoric and ideals as its business
competitors (Feller, 2004). The rhetoric can be used to mask negative environmental
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

practices.
The topic of circumstance calls out: There is money to be made! Much of what has
been written about CSR stresses that a good, responsible corporation is a corporation
that makes money. The argument goes that tackling climate change head on will lead
to increased legitimacy and improved reputation, which is thus followed by increased
profits. This is often called the business argument for CSR (Carroll, 1999; Crane &
Matten, 2004).
Vogel (2005), however, has argued that the business case is generally overblown.
CSR is a niche strategy that makes good business sense for certain corporations in
certain sectors under certain circumstances. There is plenty of evidence to show that
the market does not necessarily punish corporations that do not engage in CSR. After
all, ‘‘unethical stocks’’ are as strong as their more ethical competitors (Bendell &
Bendell, 2007).
The implications of this study thus seem to be that, although there may be
something to gain from urging businesses to see self-interest in tackling climate
change, this cannot be the only approach. Although many corporations pay attention
to the problem, their rhetoric exposes a type of economic instrumentality that seems
ill-suited to the systemic criticisms and changes that are needed. Although incentives
can be effective in rewarding responsible corporations, civil society still needs to
maintain a strong regulatory structure to help keep ‘‘the externalizing machine’’
(Bakan, 2004, p. 60) that is the modern corporation in check.
This study leaves open several questions. For instance, if the goal is to explain the
level of attention that a corporation pays to the climate change issue, then it is
necessary to look at the home base and the type of industry. Regional differences
seem to have some influence. However, it remains difficult to point to clear regional
differences between, for instance, corporations in the USA and those in Europe. It is
 Business and Climate Change 259

worth keeping in mind that the influence of globalization makes the home base
notion problematic since the corporate headquarter may be located somewhere else
than the customer base.
Industry type may hold some explanatory power, as most of the oil companies
(except for the Chinese firms and ExxonMobil) are located in the two upper quartiles.
Further research could examine the influence of these dimensions in more depth, and
also include others such as organizational culture and leadership, and explore their
links to legitimacy and CSR.
With regard to the ways corporations address the climate issue, the analysis
indicates that most of them rely on three topics, although others also add a fourth.
The first, gravity, is not a special topic that belongs only to climate policy. However, it
is also not one of the typical common topics either. Here it is suggested to be a
widespread method of establishing the seriousness of the political issue at hand, and
hence falls into both topic categories. This should also be investigated in further
research to obtain a better grasp of corporate climate rhetoric.

Note
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

[1] This figure is based on the absolute numbers of keywords, and hence pays no attention to the
length of the reports. With the possible exception of the short 14-page report issued by the
insurance company Allianz, however, there is in fact little to indicate that the number of
pages has a significant influence on keyword frequency. For instance, the reports put out by
Wal-Mart and Ford Motor were 60 and 42 pages long, respectively, whereas the corporations
in the lowest quartile included Assicurazioni Generali (168 pages) and General Electric
(96 pages).

References
Allianz. (2006). Status report 2006: Sustainability in the Allianz group. Ismaning, Germany: Allianz.
American International Group. (2007). Corporate responsibility. New York: AIG.
Apéria, T., Brønn, P. S., & Schultz, M. (2004). A reputation analysis of the most visible companies in
the Scandinavian countries. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3), 218230.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G.A. Kennedy, Trans.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Assicurazioni Generali. (2007). Sustainability report 2006. Trieste, Italy: Assicurazioni Generali.
AXA. (2007). Building confidence: Activity and sustainable development: 2006 annual report. Paris,
France: AXA.
Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. London: Constable.
Bank of America. (2007). Sustainability report 2006. Hartford, CT: Bank of America.
Begg, K., van der Woerd, F., & Levy, D. L. (Eds.). (2005). The business of climate change: Corporate
responses to Kyoto. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Bendell, J., & Bendell, M. (2007). Facing corporate power. In S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper
(Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 5973). New York: Oxford
University Press.
BNP Paribas. (2007). Environmental and social report 2006. Paris, France: BNP Paribas.
BP. (2007). Sustainability report 2006. London: BP.
 260 Ø. Ihlen

Bullis, C., & Ie, F. (2007). Corporate environmentalism. In S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.),
The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 321335). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Burkeman, O. (2003, March 4). Memo exposes Bush’s new green strategy. The Guardian. Retri-
eved March 18, 2009, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.
climatechange
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business
& Society, 38(3), 268295.
Chevron. (2007). Investing in human energy: 2006 Corporate responsibility report. San Ramon, CA:
Chevron.
China National Petroleum Corporation. (2007). Energize, harmonize, realize: Corporate social
responsibility report 2006. Beijing, China: China National Petroleum Corporation.
Citigroup. (2007). Citizenship report 2006. New York: Citigroup.
ConocoPhillips. (2007). 2006 Sustainable development report. Houston, TX: ConocoPhillips.
Conway, E. (2008, May 12). What’s in a name? Global warming vs. climate change. Retrieved
March 18, 2009, from http://globalclimatechange.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction
ShowNews&NewsID 32
Corbett, E. P. J., & Connors, R. J. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4th ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Cox, J. R. (1982). The die is cast: Topical and ontological dimensions of the locus of the irreparable.
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 227239.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (1999). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students (2nd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
DaimlerChrysler. (2007). 360 degrees sustainability 2007. Stuttgart, Germany: DaimlerChrysler.
Dunn, S. (2002). Down to business on climate change: An overview of corporate strategies. Greener
Management International, 39, 2741.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130141.
Eni. (2007). Eni sustainability report 2006. Rome, Italy: ENI.
Eurobarometer. (2008). Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-
General for Communication of the European Commission.
ExxonMobil. (2007). 2006 Corporate citizenship report. Irving, TX: ExxonMobil.
Feller, W.V. (2004). Blue skies, green industry: Corporate environmental reports as utopian
narratives. In S.L. Senecah (Ed.), Environmental communication yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 5776).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fergus, A. H. T., & Rowny, J. I. A. (2005). Sustainable development: Lost meaning and opportunity?
Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 1727.
Fisher, A. (2007, March 5). How to get a great reputation. Fortune. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/19/8402323/index.htm
Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame & fortune: How successful companies build
winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Ford. (2006). For a more sustainable future: Connecting with society: Ford Motor Company
sustainability report 2006/2007. Dearborn, MI: Ford.
Fortis. (2007). Corporate social responsibility report 2006: Stepping stones for sustainable growth.
Brussels, Belgium/Utrecht, The Netherlands: Fortis.
Ganesh, S. (2007). Sustainable development discourse and the global economy: Promoting
responsibility, containing change. In S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate
over corporate social responsibility (pp. 379390). New York: Oxford University Press.
General Electric. (2007). Solving big needs: 2006 Citizenship report. Fairfield, CT: General Electric.
 Business and Climate Change 261

General Motors. (2007). Our message: 2005/2006 Corporate responsibility report. Detroit, MI:
General Motors.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: de Gruyter.
Green Life. (2006). Don’t be fooled 2005: Americas 10 worst greenwashers. Boston, MA: Green Life.
Herrick, J. A. (2001). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Allyn
and Bacon.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different
approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 3852.
HSBC. (2007). 2006 Corporate responsibility report. London: HSBC.
Ihlen, Ø. (2009). The oxymoron of ‘‘sustainable oil production’’: The case of the Norwegian oil
industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(1), 5363.
ING Group. (2007). 2006 Corporate responsibility report: Sustainable growth: The big picture.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ING Group.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science
basis: Summary for policymakers. Geneve, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Jones, C. A., & Levy, D. L. (2007). North American business strategies towards climate change.
European Management Journal, 25(6), 428440.
Jose, A., & Lee, S-M. (2007). Environmental reporting of global corporations: A content analysis
based on website disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), 307321.
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

Ketola, T. (2007). Ten years later: Where is our common future now? Business Strategy and the
Environment, 16(3), 171189.
Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals’
reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 115.
Kolk, A., & Hoffmann, V. (2007). Business, climate change and emissions trading: Taking stock and
looking ahead. European Management Journal, 25(6), 411414.
Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2004). Market strategies for climate change. European Management Journal,
22(3), 304314.
Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2007). Multinationals’ political activities on climate change. Business &
Society, 46(2), 201228.
Livesey, S. M. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell commits to sustainable
development. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3), 313349.
Luntz Research Companies. (2002). The environment: A cleaner, safer, healthier America.
Memorandum, Washington, DC: Luntz Research Companies.
May, S. K., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (Eds.). (2007). The debate over corporate social responsibility.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative
framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 7188.
Peterson, T. R. (1997). Sharing the earth: The rhetoric of sustainable development. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press.
Peterson, T. R., & Norton, T. (2007). Discourses of sustainability in today’s public sphere.
In S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp.
351364). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pew Research Center. (2007). Rising environmental concern in 47-nation survey: Global unease with
major world powers. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Post, J. E., Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2002). Business and society: Corporate strategy, public policy,
ethics (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rowlands, I. H. (2000). Beauty and the beast? BP’s and Exxon’s positions on global climate change.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18, 339354.
Sethi, S. P. (1977). Advocay advertising and large corporations. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
 262 Ø. Ihlen

Shell Group. (2007). Meeting the energy challenge: The Shell sustainability report 2006. The Hague,
The Netherlands: Shell Group.
Siemens. (2007). Corporate responsibility at Siemens 2006. Berlin, Germany: Siemens.
Sinopec. (2007). China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation: Sustainable development 2006. Beijing,
China: Sinopec.
Skjærseth, J. B. (2005). Major oil companies in climate policy: Strategies and compliance. In O. S.
Stokke, J. Hovi, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Implementing the climate regime: International
compliance (pp. 187208). London: Earthscan.
State Grid. (2007). Corporate social responsibility report 2006. Beijing, China: State Grid.
Sullivan, R. (2008a). Setting a future direction for climate change policy. In R. Sullivan (Ed.),
Corporate responses to climate change: Achieving emissions reductions through regulation, self-
regulation and economic incentives (pp. 334338). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Sullivan, R. (Ed.). (2008b). Corporate responses to climate change: Achieving emissions reductions
through regulation, self-regulation and economic incentives. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Tetrault Sirsly, C-A., & Lamertz, K. (2008). When does a corporate social responsibility initiative
provide a first-mover advantage? Business Society, 47(3), 343369.
Total. (2007). Sharing our energies 2006: Corporate social responsibility. Courbevoie, France: Total.
Toyota. (2007). Sustainability report 2006. Tokyo, Japan: Toyota.
UBS. (2007). UBS 2006 environmental report. Basel, Switzerland: UBS.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007). Smoke, mirrors & hot air: How ExxonMobil uses Big Tobacco’s
tactics to manufacture uncertainty about climate change. Cambridge, MA: Union of
Downloaded At: 16:31 29 June 2010

Concerned Scientists.
van der Woerd, F., Levy, D. L., & Begg, K. (2003). GMI theme issue: Corporate responses to climate
change: Introduction. Greener Management International, 39, 2226.
Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Volkswagen, A G. (2005). Sustainability report 2005/2006: Moving generations. Wolfsburg, Germany:
Volkswagen AG.
Wal-Mart. (2007). Sustainability progress to date 20072008: We’re making sustainability our business.
Bentonville, AR: Wal-Mart.
Welford, R. (1997). Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development.
London: Earthscan.
Wæraas, A. (2007). Legitimacy and legitimation: The relevance of Max Weber for public relations.
Public Relations Review, 33(3), 281286.
Yeoh, R., & Tang, K. (Eds.). (2007). Cut carbon, grow profits: Business strategies for managing climate
change and sustainability. London: Middlesex University Press.